It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Wow, who'd've thought the whole issue would be so confusing.
As far as I understand it, Marduk is saying, for example, that the sumerian records say 'Gusur ruled for 1,200 years' and that we should divide it by 60, because they did everything as multiples of 60. That'd mean that, ignoring whether or not Gusur existed, that the sumerians meant to be saying that he ruled for 20 years.
Is this different from what the rest of the academic community is saying that the sumerians are saying he ruled for?
In fact, I do.
We've been trying to tell him that the numbers in the translated English versions of these texts have been corrected by the original translators. That these numbers indicated whether the writer was using a base 60 style of numbering or a base 10... it's part of the way they write their numbers.
Dr. Raul Lopez believes that the information contained in the antediluvian portion of the Sumerian King List may have originated with the Semitic “Noah’s Flood” tradition and thus supports the Genesis account. He believes that the gross discrepancies in the ages can be accounted for quite simply by a major difference between the Semitic numbering system and the Sumerian’s, and the fact that both civilizations used the same symbols to express numbers.
(My emphasis)
Originally posted by Marduk
The Sumerians used a sexagesimal (base 60) system. Dr. Lopez believes that the two people groups used the same symbols to express numbers (so that the Semitic “10” shared the same symbol as the Sumerian “60,” etc.) and that when a Sumerian scribe came across a Semitic tablet (or perhaps an oral tradition) purporting to document details concerning the antediluvian kings, he misinterpreted the numbers and his error was passed on.
Originally posted by Marduk
ah but thats not true
they simply translated all the numbers in the list the same way when what I am saying is that the numbers were originally recorded in two different ways
the usual semitic base 10 and the sumerian method which isn't base 10
this is quite simple Byrd I'm surprised you don't understand what I'm telling you
incidentally how many years have you been studying sumerology and the kings list now ?
The Semitic people used a decimal (base 10) system like the one we use today. The Sumerians used a sexagesimal (base 60) system. Dr. Lopez believes that the two people groups used the same symbols to express numbers
(so that the Semitic “10” shared the same symbol as the Sumerian “60,” etc.)
and that when a Sumerian scribe came across a Semitic tablet (or perhaps an oral tradition)
Originally posted by Marduk
I am granting you with the intelligence to be able to tell the difference
Sumerian King List may have originated with the Semitic “Noah’s Flood” tradition and thus supports the Genesis account
You're really not going to get anywhere with comments like that
These scribes who wrote in cuneiform also left behind lots and lots of multiplication tables which show how they were using numbers. They also leave behind tables of fractions and divisions. When they worked their mathematical problems, they converted things into base 60 because certain operations were easier. Then they converted back to base 10:
it.stlawu.edu...
So the two systems were always in place. They didn't have one and then switch because of a plague or a ruler's whim.
:
I'd like to know which manuscripts the Kings List came from :
* their age (approx)
* what they were written in
* where they were found
* what's on them (exactly)
* when they stopped using the base 60 method.
Originally posted by Marduk
i make it three months
what chronology are you using